Log in

View Full Version : WEB DuBois



refuse_resist
29th January 2005, 21:10
On Stalin

By W.E.B. DuBois
From the National Guardian,
March 16, 1953

Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. He was simple, calm and courageous. He seldom lost his poise; pondered his problems slowly, made his decisions clearly and firmly; never yielded to ostentation nor coyly refrained from holding his rightful place with dignity. He was the son of a serf but stood calmly before the great without hesitation or nerves. But also - and this was the highest proof of his greatness - he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate.

Stalin was not a man of conventional learning; he was much more than that: he was a man who thought deeply, read understandingly and listened to wisdom, no matter whence it came. He was attacked and slandered as few men of power have been; yet he seldom lost his courtesy and balance; nor did he let attack drive him from his convictions nor induce him to surrender positions which he knew were correct. As one of the despised minorities of man, he first set Russia on the road to conquer race prejudice and make one nation out of its 140 groups without destroying their individuality.

His judgment of men was profound. He early saw through the flamboyance and exhibitionism of Trotsky, who fooled the world, and especially America. The whole ill-bred and insulting attitude of Liberals in the U.S. today began with our naive acceptance of Trotsky's magnificent lying propaganda, which he carried around the world. Against it, Stalin stood like a rock and moved neither right nor left, as he continued to advance toward a real socialism instead of the sham Trotsky offered.

Three great decisions faced Stalin in power and he met them magnificently: first, the problem of the peasants, then the West European attack, and last the Second World War. The poor Russian peasant was the lowest victim of tsarism, capitalism and the Orthodox Church. He surrendered the Little White Father easily; he turned less readily but perceptibly from his ikons; but his kulaks clung tenaciously to capitalism and were near wrecking the revolution when Stalin risked a second revolution and drove out the rural bloodsuckers.

Then came intervention, the continuing threat of attack by all nations, halted by the Depression, only to be re-opened by Hitlerism. It was Stalin who steered the Soviet Union between Scylla and Charybdis: Western Europe and the U.S. were willing to betray her to fascism, and then had to beg her aid in the Second World War. A lesser man than Stalin would have demanded vengeance for Munich, but he had the wisdom to ask only justice for his fatherland. This Roosevelt granted but Churchill held back. The British Empire proposed first to save itself in Africa and southern Europe, while Hitler smashed the Soviets.

The Second Front dawdled, but Stalin pressed unfalteringly ahead. He risked the utter ruin of socialism in order to smash the dictatorship of Hitler and Mussolini. After Stalingrad the Western World did not know whether to weep or applaud. The cost of victory to the Soviet Union was frightful. To this day the outside world has no dream of the hurt, the loss and the sacrifices. For his calm, stern leadership here, if nowhere else, arises the deep worship of Stalin by the people of all the Russias.

Then came the problem of Peace. Hard as this was to Europe and America, it was far harder to Stalin and the Soviets. The conventional rulers of the world hated and feared them and would have been only too willing to see the utter failure of this attempt at socialism. At the same time the fear of Japan and Asia was also real. Diplomacy therefore took hold and Stalin was picked as the victim. He was called in conference with British imperialism represented by its trained and well-fed aristocracy; and with the vast wealth and potential power of America represented by its most liberal leader in half a century.

Here Stalin showed his real greatness. He neither cringed nor strutted. He never presumed, he never surrendered. He gained the friendship of Roosevelt and the respect of Churchill. He asked neither adulation nor vengeance. He was reasonable and conciliatory. But on what he deemed essential, he was inflexible. He was willing to resurrect the League of Nations, which had insulted the Soviets. He was willing to fight Japan, even though Japan was then no menace to the Soviet Union, and might be death to the British Empire and to American trade. But on two points Stalin was adamant: Clemenceau's "Cordon Sanitaire" must be returned to the Soviets, whence it had been stolen as a threat. The Balkans were not to be left helpless before Western exploitation for the benefit of land monopoly. The workers and peasants there must have their say.

Such was the man who lies dead, still the butt of noisy jackals and of the ill-bred men of some parts of the distempered West. In life he suffered under continuous and studied insult; he was forced to make bitter decisions on his own lone responsibility. His reward comes as the common man stands in solemn acclaim.

http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0003/stalweb.htm

dreams are free mofo
4th February 2005, 15:07
I wonder what DuBois would think now after more information had been revealed as to the extent of what Stalin did to his people...

refuse_resist
5th February 2005, 00:50
Originally posted by dreams are free [email protected] 4 2005, 03:07 PM
I wonder what DuBois would think now after more information had been revealed as to the extent of what Stalin did to his people...
You mean the Nazi and counterrevolutionary lies delibrately put out to give the USSR a bad name?

dreams are free mofo
5th February 2005, 01:15
so anything negative about Stalin as related to the USSR was a lie?

Urban Rubble
5th February 2005, 02:11
You mean the Nazi and counterrevolutionary lies delibrately put out to give the USSR a bad name?

Ha. Yes, the gulags and the purges were all just figments of Hitler's imagination.

So where did all those thousands of party members and officers go ? Did they just wander off ?

bolshevik butcher
5th February 2005, 10:41
And all those ukranians.

Wiesty
5th February 2005, 14:45
<_< what a lie............

redstar2000
5th February 2005, 17:01
The purges and gulags were "common knowledge" in 1953 (especially in the United States)...and DuBois admired Stalin anyway.

He thought, evidently, that Stalin&#39;s positive achievements far outweighed his fuckups, crimes, etc.

Curious.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Wiesty
5th February 2005, 17:34
stalin was a fuck up

BOZG
5th February 2005, 17:52
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:34 PM
stalin was a fuck up
Wow, nice critique.

Wiesty
5th February 2005, 18:29
*bows*

bolshevik butcher
9th February 2005, 19:14
*applauds poudly*

refuse_resist
9th February 2005, 21:54
Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 5 2005, 02:11 AM

You mean the Nazi and counterrevolutionary lies delibrately put out to give the USSR a bad name?

Ha. Yes, the gulags and the purges were all just figments of Hitler&#39;s imagination.

So where did all those thousands of party members and officers go ? Did they just wander off ?
Those party members which you speak of were all counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore capitalism and were sympathizers of the White Army.

The Garbage Disposal Unit
9th February 2005, 22:15
Those party members which you speak of were all counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore capitalism and were sympathizers of the White Army.

Or left-oppositionists and "Trotskyites" who pushed for a legitimate and international socialism against Soviet State-Capitalism, and remembered the old slogans - "All Power To The Soviets&#33;" and all that.

bolshevik butcher
10th February 2005, 21:07
Originally posted by refuse_resist+Feb 9 2005, 09:54 PM--> (refuse_resist @ Feb 9 2005, 09:54 PM)
Urban [email protected] 5 2005, 02:11 AM

You mean the Nazi and counterrevolutionary lies delibrately put out to give the USSR a bad name?

Ha. Yes, the gulags and the purges were all just figments of Hitler&#39;s imagination.

So where did all those thousands of party members and officers go ? Did they just wander off ?
Those party members which you speak of were all counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore capitalism and were sympathizers of the White Army. [/b]
Sure they were, they didn&#39;t just oppose stalin, as were all the ukranieans and eveyone else in his way.

Urban Rubble
12th February 2005, 20:31
Those party members which you speak of were all counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore capitalism and were sympathizers of the White Army.

You are ridiculously naive if you really believe that.

I&#39;ll just give you a few random examples of how totally inaccurate that is.

Do a google search and read about all the designers of World War 2 Soviet aircraft who were imprisoned and forced to work in labor camps for years simply because they knew too much sensitive information.

Ever read about the Spanish Civil War kid ? Again, do a google search. The Comintern, with Stalin at the helm suppressed revolution during the civil war because Spain "wasn&#39;t ready" (despite the fact that there were large portions of the city already functioning in a collective manner). Huge numbers of Anarchists fighting against the fascists were slaughtered because the Communists didn&#39;t want to many guns to get into Anarchist hands.

Read a book dummy. Denying history is fun, I know, but at some point you&#39;re going to have to wake up and realize that even though lies have been spread about Stalin, many of his crimes were very real.

Jesus Christ!
12th February 2005, 21:13
In my opinion Stalin was the worst thing that ever happened to communism. When you start talking about it people will auto matically disregard your statements and say " wasn&#39;t Stalin communist?"

Why the fuck would the Bolsheviks be counter revolutionaries when they were the revolutionaries themselves? All the people Stalin massacred were 100x the revolutionary he was.

Hiero
13th February 2005, 00:25
Why the fuck would the Bolsheviks be counter revolutionaries when they were the revolutionaries themselves?

Every country that has had revolution has shown to have counter revolutionaries in the party.

Deng
Krushchev.

Wiesty
15th February 2005, 13:32
exactly, the october revolution and the years to follow with stalin, was not a peoples revolution, it was a bloody war to expand russias economic capabilities.

Stalin wasnt doing anything for the working class, he exploited them WORSE than the capitalists did

redstar2000
23rd February 2005, 17:37
Originally posted by Weisty
Stalin wasn&#39;t doing anything for the working class, he exploited them WORSE than the capitalists did.

No, that&#39;s not true. The Russian working class actually benefitted from Stalin&#39;s rule.

The peasantry had a tough time and party members were always in danger of the gulag...but very few actual workers were ever Stalin&#39;s "target".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

bolshevik butcher
23rd February 2005, 21:03
Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 23 2005, 05:37 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 23 2005, 05:37 PM)
Weisty
Stalin wasn&#39;t doing anything for the working class, he exploited them WORSE than the capitalists did.

No, that&#39;s not true. The Russian working class actually benefitted from Stalin&#39;s rule.

The peasantry had a tough time and party members were always in danger of the gulag...but very few actual workers were ever Stalin&#39;s "target".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
How? through starvation, the workers lived terrible lives, and had very little freedom.

refuse_resist
25th March 2005, 10:50
Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 12 2005, 08:31 PM

Those party members which you speak of were all counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore capitalism and were sympathizers of the White Army.

You are ridiculously naive if you really believe that.

I&#39;ll just give you a few random examples of how totally inaccurate that is.

Do a google search and read about all the designers of World War 2 Soviet aircraft who were imprisoned and forced to work in labor camps for years simply because they knew too much sensitive information.

Ever read about the Spanish Civil War kid ? Again, do a google search. The Comintern, with Stalin at the helm suppressed revolution during the civil war because Spain "wasn&#39;t ready" (despite the fact that there were large portions of the city already functioning in a collective manner). Huge numbers of Anarchists fighting against the fascists were slaughtered because the Communists didn&#39;t want to many guns to get into Anarchist hands.

Read a book dummy. Denying history is fun, I know, but at some point you&#39;re going to have to wake up and realize that even though lies have been spread about Stalin, many of his crimes were very real.
The book said it, so it must be true. :o :rolleyes:

rice349
25th March 2005, 11:03
Apparently in your google search you also don&#39;t recall finding an important piece of information which states that while no major nation wanted to get involved in the Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union under the direction of Comrade Stalin sent over 750 airmen to aid the republicans against the fascists...

Urban Rubble
25th March 2005, 19:27
while no major nation wanted to get involved in the Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union under the direction of Comrade Stalin sent over 750 airmen to aid the republicans against the fascists...

Stalin sent troops to fight Franco, you&#39;re right, but his motivation in doing so was to supress the Spanish Revolution. Stalin and the comintern felt that Spain was not ready, anyone with a slight knowledge of this conflict knows that the Communist side did everything they could to work with the liberal Spanish government in suppressing the revolution.


The book said it, so it must be true.

Yes, and because a non-communist wrote said book it must NOT be true.

I&#39;ll take that as "I&#39;m too ignorant on the subject to come up with a reply".